>> chaie: welcome to our program. we continue our conversation about the occupy movement wit mayor antonio villaraigosa, the mayor of los angeles. >> i'm here as mayor of los angeles because there was a civil rights act and a voting rights act. i certainly underood and i empathize with some, in fact many of their goals. but i also said that i thought that it was important that they write a new chapter, develop new forms, reach out across a broader coalition of society and engage in the political organizing that makes change as well. >> we conclude this evening with a conversation of general jim

jones, a former national security advisor to president obama. >> what happens in pakistan is very hard to explain in a rational logical sense because the conclusion that i draw is that this a country that is hell bent on self destruction. given th fact -- >> charlie: hell bent on self destruction. >> let me puttanother way. we're not taking many opportunities that we and others have presented to them that we dramatically transform and help transform their society and move it forward. >> charlie: do you accept that others do not know th osama bin laden was in pakistan. >> i think, charlie, i think that's inconceivable. >> charlie: inconceivable. >> can't, i just, i just can't, personally, my personal opinion is that i just find it

hard to believe. >> charlie: so what were they thinking about. >> this is getting backer to my point there's no logic here. >> charlie: villaraigosa and jones when we continue.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> charlie: tonight we tip our coverage of the occupy movement. occupy los angeles was broken up last night by the police department. 200 protesters were arrested. despite this l.a.p.d. and officials have received praised. previously at this table we have heard about nationwide occupation from protesters, academics and journalists. tonight we hear from an elected official. joining me from los angeles is antonio villaraigosa. i'm pleased to have him at this table and to have him on this

ogram again. so welcome. >> great to be on this show again, charlie. >> charlie: tell me where, give me a sense of how you view this issue and why you made the decisions you did and what the political ramifications are as you saw them. >> well, from the very beginning, we said in los angeles that we respect the first amendment, the constitutional right of freedom of speech and assembly that protesters, if they were peaceful, had every right to come to city hall and prost the ineities society, in this case, are the growing disparity between wealth and poverty, the concentration of wealth in a small number of people. the lack of jobs in the country right now. and so early on from the very beginning as i mentioned, 68 days ago, our police officers,

my staff, city staff engaged with them, talked to them virtually every single day. said to them, you can continue your protest but do so peacefully. and that's really what happened. yesterday was a maificent display of constitutional policing of its finest. >> charlie: did you learn some lessons by watching what was happen thing in other cities that informed your thinking? >> yes. we were, from the beginning, very clear that moving in a nfrontational wa pushing them out too quickly out the kinds of discussions and the respect on both sides that it didn't make sense for us. that it made a lot more sense to engage them and that's what we've done. i mean, even last week when

close to 70 people were arrested, we worked together to arrange those arrests, engage in civil disobedience. the officers rerestrained. but last night it was exceptional in that regard. agai it's due to the professionalism of our police department. just the tact we took from the beginning, respecting freedom of speech. but we also said as an example, charlie, that you know, city hall is a place where people come virtually every day, to protest against the government, to criticize me as an example. to make their views known. to get the immediate attention that they need. this encampment again to stifle reasons from others and for that we felt it was time to move on.

>> charlie: why did you feel it wasecessary t move at this time. what principal were you operating on there? >> there were a couple things. we had been talking for a long time and although we made a lot of progress, it was with a small group of them. and it was clear because they have 90 to 100% consensus threshold that even if we were able to get some agreements out some accommodations, they would be agreements that would be challenged by the others. there was also an issue of public health and safety. there were children there. i became increasingly concerned that something could get out of hand, that something terrible could happen. and it was then that the police chief charlie beck and myself agreed that we had closed down the camp. >> charlie: so you said in a letter quote in seven short

weeks, are speaking to the occupy group, you've awakened the country's conscious. you've given voice to those who have not been heard. tell us what you have learned about the occupy movement because you have had to directly deal with them. >> you may know charlie that i came out of the civil rights and the labor movement as wealth i -- as well, i was president of the american civil liberties union. i'm here as mayor of los angeles because there was a civil rights act and a voting rights act. i certainly unrstood d i empathize with some, in fact many of their goals. but i also said that i thought it was important that theyrite a new chapter, develop new forms, reach out across a broader coalition of ciety. and enge in the political

organizing that makes change as well. so i think there was a lot of what they had to say or frankly the issue that cities like my own are grappling with all across the country. hunger, homelessness, foreclosures, the jobs crises. the stalemate and the grid lock in washington d.c. the bail out of banks but not of the little guy. the folks feeling like nobody's listening. those are all things that and issues that we're grappling with every day in our cities. how we put people back to work and really restore the lust if you are of the american dream- -- luster of the american dream. >> charlie: you say the occupyovement faces the question how it can build on its initial success. it's a question whether energy will be consumed to defend a

particular patch of earth or whether that energy is spreading the message of economic equal. is that a dilemma that you tnk faces the movement at this moment. >> i do. as an example, just as l.a. and our police department charted a different path, so did they. they were very peace peaceful e most part. did they always comply with every order, no. were they arrested from time to time. yes, including last night. but they were peaceful. if they're going to be successful, they have to be peaceful. the power of non-violence is the power we saw with the civil rights movement and martin luther king with gandhi and others. it's a power that really gives

great legit matey. it will dissipate very very quickly. they have to reach out and broaden their coalition. reach out to the clergy to the unions which they started to do but also law who aren't political to share common goals and objectives. in the end if we want to change policy we've got to make sure our leaders are responding to us law or change our leaders. >> charlie: without making too much of a comparison here is that examined with the tea part and whatever that movement was, they decided to try to use the polical process to achieve what they defined as their objectives.

>> exactly. they started out at town halls. they branched from there to getting involved in elections. as much as some may take umbridge with potics, the fact is if they want to make that change, they have to effectuate the change in the congress and in the country. >> charlie: mr. mayor, thank you for coming. it's a pleasur to have you on this program. hope we can see you when we're in los angeles. >> either in los angeles or new york. i know you're moving on as well in some place. >> charlie: i'm going to work around the clock if that's all right. >> you're already working around the clock. thank you. >> charlie: thank you. general judgment jones is here. he was president obama's choice to be his first natial security advisornd served in that role until november 2010. he played a major role in

conversations about some of the important foreign policy decisions that the president made. general jones was allieded commander in -- i'm pleased to have you back in this program. is there a doctrine that someone could define. >> yes. i think the foreign policy the president laid out essentially in three speeches, at least in my mind served to define at least the president's vision for that policy is. the first speech of course is the inaugural address. the second is the cairo speech and the third was his acceptance speech of the nobel peace prize. within those speeches, he i think captured and may overly captured his rhetoric w able to motivate not just and inspire

not just americans, but millions of people around the world. especiallyn the muslim world. so this grand vision of the future that we articulated so well was also a message of great expectations. and now two or three years later, people are rightly saying it's time okay, let see what do we have to show fort. >> charlie: we heard the speech now show us the action. show us the deed. >> right. >> charlie: can we do that. >> i think in some ways, yes and in some ways we've been disappointed and t president is not, doesn't kid himself on this. he knows that the middle east peace process is a major disappointment. iran still is with a large shadow over not only the region

but also the world in terms of proliferation. and its marched towards acquiring nuclear weapons. iraq, we have met the president's goals about withdrawing from iraq. i think that most people, including the president, probably wish that we had found a way to stay a little bit longer in terms of advisors and mentors and trainer >> crlie: why didn't that happen. >> it didn't happen because e iraqi government couldn't bring itself to ask for it and to give us the protections we always ask for, for our personnel in terms -- >> charlie: if the president wanted to stay a little bit longer but he cldn't get -- >> i've been gone om th whitehouse for a yea but i think had there been a request from the government that it would have been carefully evaluated and probably we would have found some way to do that. >> charlie: is there any way of a failure on our part to get

them to come to that conclusion that it was in their best interest for the united states to stay. >> it's a little bit of a two-way street. but once you cross that threshold and you're dealing with a sovereign elected government under the rules of diplomacy, you have to respect the sovereignty of that government. there's no country in the world that i know of where we have military presence where we have not been invited. that's been one of the hallmarks of the united states foreign policies since 1945 at least. >> charlie: go to afghanistan where you now have also an accelerated withdrawal strategy. is afghanistan ready for tt? >> wellthat's interesting. the 2014 date is being bandied about by karzai himself at the london conference at the end of early 2009 and early 2010. he made a declarative statement that by 2014 he president karzai

wanted to be in full control of his country. the security, the economy, the politics, the government and wanted outside interferee or assistance minimized. theorld took him up on that. the united states did, the nato summit did in lisbon in 2009. it's had a good forcing function for people who thought somehow this was going to be an open-ended commitment. this is another area where the president's statements are being matched. now there are people who think, as you implied, that they will not be ready. we still have sometime to go. alady you can see the afghan parliament reacting rather vigorously with the idea there might be a wholesale departure

of nato troops, nato forces and know that they probably need some sort of assistance beyond that. whether it's a training mentoring advising capacity, we shall see. but it is i think useful to have a forcing function that says, you know, in 2014, the relationship is going to be different. we've tried. we've been here for ten years. we've done, we'vepent billions ofollars. we shed a lot of blood in your behalf. and now it's time to see if the afghans understand wt this tremenus oortunity is and this gift a the sacrifice. and do you hav what it takes now to fight for your own destiny. >> charlie: suppose, take yourself back to 2009 when the president took office and you were his national security advisor. suppose you said we have made an afghan pakistan review and we have decided that there was no american interest here, we're

withdrawing. and the options are unacceptable to us. would afghanistan be a very different ace today than it will be? >> i think if we've done that in 2009, yes. i think that -- something major happened in 2006. in 2006 when i was a nato commander, i watched with great interest from my headquarters in brussels, the pakistani decision to cut a deal with the tribal elders along the border that basically suggested that the pakistani army woul not go into the tribal regions if they police the border between afghanistan an pakistan. tral leaders were thrilled with that deal. and so the paths of infiltration

that existed at that time turned into highways. and that was a major turning point. >> charlie: that's 2006. >> in 2006. and i remember, i had the chief of staff of the army over in brussels in my office and i asked him to explain to me how he thought that this was going to work. and what is the rationale for believing that there would be any success in this. and he tried. i wasn't convinced and it turned out to be a defining moment from which more avenues and areas of refuge in pakistan took place. and it literally transformed the battlefield in the eastern part and the southern part of afghanistan in favor of as secretary gates and mullens said,he momentum is swinging towards the taliban for the first time in a military sense.

therefore the pakistan afghan strategy to developwas reversing that tide so we could prepare them for taking control of their own destiny. >> charlie: i may be wrong but my understanding is you can never be able to make afghanistan secure unless you close those borders. as long as they remain open, that will be impossiblin order to create the kind ofecurity that will enable a kind of governance to build up from so that it can run that country. >> i think you're absolutely right. and i think that the rise of the influence of pakistan and the outcome of whatever we're trying to do in afghanistan started for real in 2006 and is now manifested and now is a problem of huge proportions, in terms of how afghanistan is going to turn out. >> charlie: will it end up in negotiated, some kind of

negotiation with the taliban in the end? >> you know, i think that ultimately that that's going to be up to the afghans. i think my first war with vietnam, i was a young 23 year old first lieutenant infantry company commander, platoon commander 67 and 68. nobody ever asked me my opinion but when i left vietnam, i was pretty convinced that it would be very difficult for the etnamese army that i saw to with stand an attack from the north. because i thoht against the north examine they're pretty good sdiers. >> crlie and motivated. >> and motivated. as way start to transition here it's a question of the afghans.

they don't want any heart of -- we'll see if they're willing to do something about that. >> charlie: go to pakistan because i want to touch on other places around the world. it looks like we have a troubled relationship today. >> you're very kind. >> charlie: how bad is it. you had a small role, you had the pakistan ambassador had to resign becauseof a letter because you had something to do in handing off to admiral mullens. explain that. >> you're correct about the small world. i was in my civilian capacity roughly the 9th or 10th of may of this year and had met mr. -- >> charlie: explain who he is. >> he's the essential figure in this story is a pakistani-american who is a

businessman and who lives in europe. but he stays very connected and has been very connected to the developments -- >> charlie: did he have credibility at the national security council and the u.s. and i mean by that the broad range of the national security establishment washington. >> he had acquaintances and he knows a lot about the history. he rticipated in some of it. and so when he sent me an e-mail from europe with this message which i read and asked me if i would deliver it to admiral mull. we're friends and it was easy to send it to him. >> charlie: it created more consternation on the part of the pakistanis which created a huge problem. how bad is the relationship and what are the consuences o that is the issue. >> you know, in the several

years that i guessmy awakening if you will for pakistan started in 2006, as i mentioned. but in the two years that i was privileged to work in the whitouse, i spent a lot of time on pakistan. went there many times, had one-on-ones with their senior leadership both military and political. and you know, i come away from that whole experience scratching my head because there's no logic to it. what happens in pakistan, and i have a lot of friends there. what happens in pakistan is very hard to explain in a rational logical sense because the conclusion that i draw, are this is a country that is hell bent on self destruction. given the fact -- >> charlie: hell bent on self destruction. >> i'm not taking advantage of -- let me put it another way. i'm not taking advantages of

many opportunities that we and others have presented to them that would dramatically transform and help transform their society and move it forward in a more peaceful way not only in internal conflicts but external. >> charlie: part of the conventional wisdom is isi maintained relationship with the network because they want to have a player in afghanistan if things go bad. >> well ... >> charlie: they do things that are not in our interest. >> think that that is absolutely correct. but i will go a stepurther and say that the isi is not independently of the general. >> charlie: so therefore the buck stops with him. >> for rose that they suld explain perhaps at some point. the military influence in

pakistan on the destiny of the nation is very high in relation to t position they occupy. in other words we don' have a musharraf running the government but it isn't far from that in terms of the inuence the military has. i know people pointed to the isi but you know who ran the isi before the general. >> charlie: yes. >> so i've had many conversations with general -- >> charlie: what does he say. somebody explain to me when you bring this up does he say you don't understand our problems or does he say simply not true, general, i promise you if i knew about it i would not allow this to happen. >> a combination of things. the third one would be you left us hanging in the most and we have no faith in you that you're going to stay and you're going to do what -- >> charlie: and you'll do your best. >> we're covering our best and play all sides against the middle. >> charlie:he says that. >> the last part is mine but the

first part was his. >> charlie: right. the implication is clear. >> exactly. we talked, we talked at great length about the opportunity that existed with president obama, prime minister shingh in india. there were a network of leaders willing to do a lot of things that would have helped pakistan and its sious economic problems and revamping the society. >> charlie: a serious possibility of the stabilizing forces within. >> totally, totally. and essentially, what was, what is being asked is that pakistan renounce terrorism instrument of its foreign policy. in other words accepting the location of terrorists organizations, whether safe havens where they are

directorred towards afghanistan or india towards peace and progress especially when you have a visionary leader like prime minister shigh who has taken huge political risk and not responding -- >> charlie: there were acts in his country that were originated in pakistan. >> not responding to mumbai politically. and the russian roulette game that i think the pakistanis are playing and i said this in exactly those words and i said my former colleagues at the nfc and the state dent have done the same thing -- department have done the same thing. is that you really don't understand or you don't understand that you'relaying russian roulette here with your future becse if there's another attack originating fr pakistan and india, prime minister shingh -- >> chaie: we continue our aid, don't we. >> so the dilemma and the foreign policy front is what do

we do about this. and there will be those who will say cut them off. and let's end it and the pakistanis will say see, told you so. and there are those who say we should shape it differently. i come down on the side that we have to continue to have some sort of relationship. we have to show them that there's a, and convince them, and i think by them, i'm convinced that we made the point to the army. so general kiani and his successor and the army comes over to our way of thinking then everything's a lot easier. they haven't so presumably they might not. but there are other itrts in pakistan that need to be, that need to understand exactly the position. >> charlie: do you acpt that the high, that the general kiani and others did not know that osama bin laden was in

pakistan? >> i think, charlie, i think that's inconceivable. >> charlie: inconceivable. >> i can't, i just, just can't, personally my personal opinion is that i just find it hard to believe. >> so what were they thinking about. >> this is getting back to my point that there's no logic here. >> yes. >> it's hard to believe. i mean i would love to have them come on your are show some day and answer thatuestion because it makes no sense. it really makes no sense. it makes no sense to me that the pakistani army is not working very closely with us along the border to make sure that accidents like the ones that just happened don't happen. all you need are coordination centers. >> charlie: if there was more coordination that accident would

not have happed. >> of course. general mcchrystal worked very hard and general petraeus very hard with the pakistan military to set up just that kind of command and control center that would mitigate and prevent those kinds o incidents from happening. but you know, the pakistani army sometimes does it, sometimes doesn't and it's hot andold and you never really know, you really never know but they're not,they just haven't completely bought into what it is we're offering. i don't know what more you can do to convince me to be honest with you. >> charlie: certainly tried. >> certainly tried. >> charlie: let me just say this quickly. one of the -- brothers was here and he said to me that their objectivwith respect to nuclear is to have the same

options that japan had. now the conventional wisdom is at japan has the nuclear capacity to have nuclear weapons quickly, in a small amount of time if in fact they should decide it was in their interest to do that. is that your judgment that they n't want to actually bld a mb right now, the iranians but they want to have the ability to do it. is that their goal do you think? >> i don't know the answ to that. but , let's posit for a minute and say if that's their goal there are ways they can reassure the world that is their goal. and the the problems that they haveot even done the slightest bit of, they're trying to reassure theorld. >> charlie: taking those steps of transparenty. >> right, there's no

transparency. >> we started in 2009, it was basically a charade. even their most ardent supporter, turkey, who, and i respect this, this is not a criticism but who really believed that there was a deal that could have been struck was humiliated by walking out of the istanbul conference last year of the iranian delegation. and so you know, misty rusll famous comedian said he will turn the other cheek. there's a lot of that. >> charlie: let me give you a scenario and just tell me. suppose there's a strike against iran. what do you think they would, how would they respond? you have to be game playing this all the

time. >> i think they would respond obviously with their limitations and means, probably regional response. >>harlie: right. they pretty much suggested that. >> yes. >> charlie: also even made a threat to tuey the other day. >> again, there are certain countries on this planet where logic is not, you have to be willing to try to get into the illogical world of their decision-making. i thinkate suggests that the government and the regime of iran is more fractured between the secular and the non-secular than perhaps we thought. >> charlie: this is the conflict between ahmadinejad and the supreme leaders. >> and maybe others. and the man on the street, the arab spring precursor was really

in iran. it just didn't, they didn't finish it but there's certainly some reason for the regime to be concerned now. and i'm sure that they're watching the phenomenon called arab spring very closely. >> charlie: there a places in egypt and other places where they he the possibility of becoming. >> if i could just on iran, there are three reasons, main reasons why everybody's concerned about iran. the first one is just the fact that another nation state gets nuclear weapons, especially one that has advertised it as it intends to wipe israel off the map if they get such weapons. we have to take that seriously when people say something like that. the send reasonis that if they do get a nuclear weapon that will trigger nuclear arms race in the gulf. and third, that the one that

should keep everybody up at night. virtually every country ever acquired nuclear weapons on this planet, including ours has exported their technology to someone. we think we did it right but we did. and north korea and pakistan and iran exporting weapons to mass destruction to hamas or hezbollah or some surgate and having a non-state require that kind is a game changer in terms of the way we live. >> charlie: when we think about iran, we have to think about the possibility if today a nuclear device that they might ry well export it, not use it against israel but export it to people who are less or more reckless about what theydo. >> i think seriously their statement about how they would use it but the fact of the matter is in the history of nuclear weapons, every cntry that's acquired nuclear weapons has been, has not, other than us

has been reluctant touse it beuse they know of the consequences. north korea ows what would happen if they ever used it. so the problem with nation states is not quite as serious as people think. >> charlie: you can't retail ate against a non-state. >> that's it >> charlie: there's no venue to go to. >> that's it. >> charlie: so let me just understand iran. so they'll attack somebody. does the middle east go up in flames if there's an attack against iran. is that the scenario we're looking at? is there a safeway to dothis? >> we are on an axis of one end that says do nothing and on the other end says take military action or overt action. you're now at the sanctions stage and they are having some good effect. i don't know that they'll cause the government say oh yes, if you lift the sanctions we'll do

x, y and z. but we'll see. there are more things that can be done between where we are now and the kinetic, the overkinetic space. and i presume that as time goes on and as people get more concerned about the immediacy and where their program is, we'll see what happens. but it is a very serious problem. >> charlie: did israel necessary come to the united states and say we have no choice, we'reoing to do this. can you man doing this without asking. would they at least advise,all up the president and saying we have no chce, we're not asking for your approval, we're not asking for your const. you ar responsible as a sovereign nation for your own actions of security and we have taken this decision because of the information we have. >> because of the relationship that we have had with israel, one would, i would think that we

would expect them to d that. i don't think it's 100% guaranteed that it would, but i think at main memorandum, that wod be something that we would like to know about. >> charlie: this last question, so within the place in terms of using an attack, a military attack and over here trying to negotiate something and in betwee are sanctions. where are things of assassination like iranian scientists and -- does tha have the possibility of success or is that just simply tryg to delay the process? >> well, i think that there are, i can't comment on the assassination thing becae i don't think that would come from the united states. >> charlie: nor do they. >> but there's an awful lot of intelligence that we have and that the israelis have and that the russians have and that we share. >> charlie: right. >> so that we can all come to

and other countries can come to pretty clear headed idea where this program is and howalong it. and without in the private sector but there are other things between getting kinetic and where we are now that we can, you can dramatically tighten up on the isolation of the country. >> and we have not yet had an international oil sanction. >> correct. >> and that's the last card you play in the iranian economic. >> there's also a number of internationally covert things that can be done to delay, retard, delay the program. >> charlie: so there's still tools in the toolkit. >> there are still so tools in the toolkit. and there is some time, not never, but some time before you have to make that ultimate

decision. >> charlie: the arab awakening, the arab spring. assess what it means to the united states and for the region. >> i think this phenomena is the most significant event on the face of the earth since the collapse of the soviet union. >> right. >> and therefore, the urgency for it to come out right generally speaking, for the leadership of the united states and the role we hopeo continue to play in the 21st century is extremely portant. it is on the one hand a, we can take solace from the fact that this was not terrorist inspired. hamas and his blah did not conspire to trigger this. >> charlie: and it was the directed against the united states or anybody else. freedom of dignity. >> these are people who have through the internet through travel through education, through kind of the globalized

wod and the access of information, watching television all over the world, we've seen that there are better ways for them to live and there are better ways for their children to live and they've come to the conclusion that under the current regime, they will never get there. and they put their lives on the line to try to fasten a better outcome. charlie: what's going to happen in syria. >> so these uprisings that caught everybody by surprise, are a reality that we have to de with. and there are two things that can happen. one is that you can be sure that there are people hard at work and to make sure they don't tu out the way the demonstrators want. in fact, if they can create a whole group of little irans all over the place that's what they want we need to be awe of what'

going on. secondly, we need to think much harder about what our response is in order to shape the environment, to make the outcome be favorable. and for the first time in 60 years, it's not about sending them the six fleets or the marines or the air force or army or special forces. it's about providing them with economic assistance and training and coaching on how you can reshape your economy. how you can live, how a government can end up in more transparent way respt of human rights and be the government of these visionaries are trying to shape. and it's extremely important that it come out as close as possible thaway. now with a lot of people that i talked to, it said that you

know, the irony could be that you could have a democratically elected government. that doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to be in full agreement with us and that's absolutely true. and -- >> charlie: it may be tougher onsrael. >> what it means is thate're going to have to deal with the world as it i not as we wish it were as it was but there are a lot of things that can be done in terms of shaping either directly, unilaterally or the coalion of like-minded nations, the truly prosper nation, people who have money to join together to reach out to these very fragile -- >> charlie: is that happening. >> again, i think in every place it's probably a different solution, a different solution, but there's no question that we have to figure it out and we have to figure it out quickly. those ambassadors over there are

not playing a pivot role i think and should be empowered to make the same decisions without coming wait and waiting 90 days to get a decision here that move things in the right direction. interesting little conversation with the egyptian ambsador not long ago i asked him how was the economy and he said obviously with that economy it's difficult but one thing that's interestin more american companies over in egypt now than ever beforerying to do business, trying to -- >> charlie: well they see economic opportunity. >> yes. well to me, at least up until recently the army in egypt was pretty popular andhey did some good things. so the security aspect of sending him the american forces is not really necessary. but the economic and the governments and rule of law and those things is very necessary. and show i think that part of our 21st century response package has to be more of a whole of government response.

>> charlie: right. >> we have not yet figured out in washington how to do that and how to resource that appropriately across the departments. >> charlie: there's been a clear sense that the obama administration has sent a signal that its focus is east and that it understands that the challenge in the 21st century is in a large pt coming from the pacific. >> yes, i've heard that. >> crlie: we have to go there and develop relationsships. we have to go there to the chinese and see we want to be a power and we worry about domination and we are your friend. >> there may be a trend towards doing that but i will also say that my observations of traveling most of the world in

the last 15 or 20 years is more recently that there's a real concern that united states leadership will dissipate in the 21st century in any particular section of the world. we are, we get criticized a lot. we're held up to criticism and judgments that may or may not be unfair. but at the end of the day, most of the people that i talk to and different governments around the world, do not want to see a world in which the united states is only partially present in certain areas. so there are certain economic realities will drive this and that's fine. >> charlie: let me just interrupt you because it's so crucial. you're saying, you said that over the last ten or 15 years. i mean clearly with the world in transition, you were saying that people around the world want u.s. leadership.

they do not want us to abandon the idea of the role that we ay. >> that's correct. >> charlie: you also se to be saying something that they fear we may. >>hat's correct. that's correct. and i, and i don't think we will. i think we'll figure this out. i think this is a historical moment in terms of our own history and our influence in the world is going to be shaped over the next few years that may affect us for the next 20 or 30 years. i think most americans believe that of course we're together to be the numbe one nation for lack of a better term. but there's nothing guaranteed there. we've got a competitive world all around us. we've shaped it, we, it bece what we created. >> charlie: i'll close with something you've written about and think about and have talked

about. energy security. we don't ha an energy policy. have not had one. >> true. >> charlie: so what kind of policy ought we have and how does it, what would be necessary to achieve that policy. >> i think one of the most significant missing links in our nation security strategy portfolio which has been flattened and broadened under president obama to include things that were never there before. fiber security, certain economic aspects, trade, global development. i mean these are things that we brought in as we cread the national security apparatus to deal with e world as it is. not as we wish it was but as it is. but the missing link is energy. energy for the united states to

not have a national energy strategy as much as we have a national security strategy, we published for the world to read and national intelligence estimates, there was no single document that says this is the energy strategy of the united states. >> charlie: even though various presidents have said we must eliminate r addiction to fossil fuel. >> i sat in gas lines in 1973 and i list -- listened to president nixon saying never again will we be held hostage to that. that's not an issue anymore and here's why. first let me say not only do we not have a strategy and we should fix that but secony, we are also flyrganized in our government in the executive branch and in the legislati branch. but in the department of energy is not the department of all energy. it's the department of nuclear energy and that's the way it was created. and that's the way it still is. the esident i think needs a

single point of reference like he has with hillary clinton when he says you want to talk about foreign poli you go to the secretary of state. talk about defense go to secretary of defense. talk about educati, talk about energy you can go talk to the department of energyut they can't shape anything. i'll use the analo of how we reform the intelligence system years ago. we used to have soap pipe intelligence and there was a massive reform created a director of national intelligence. and for the last seven or eight years, the most phenomenal transformation i think in terms of capabilities that the united states has is the intelligence and information field. and i watched it closely for two years. >> charlie: you're saying it works. >> it works. the war on terror, i can guarantee you that al-eda leaders are sitting around the table pointing to the other guy, who is going to be the next leader because systematically we are, i believe that we are

staying abreast of the terrori effort. we know what they're doing, we know where they're, we know who they are and we know how to get them and we're working with a lot of natns like united nations. and the flow of information back and fth is warp speed. we have diffused terrorists attacks in our own country so that's the analogy. so the analogy is on energy is if you have nine departments and energy scattered over those nine departments, you can, you can reorganize this very simply by saying you, secretary of energy or the secretary of all of energy and they com to your table. and if i'm the president and you say to the secretary of energy, you're my appoint. our organization thus far has triggered about 30 to 32 oversight committees on capitol hill. you don't need 32 committees. there's no coherence to that if you nt a strategic result. so we organize, pretty easy to do, doesn't take appear act of

congress. and get a national energy strategy. the reason that's important is i read a piece in the "wall street journal" today that six out of the last nine months this country has been an exporter of oil-sed products. fascinating article. >> charlie: absolutely. >> absolutely made. it was the biggest -- >> charlie: net exporter of oil-based products. >> can you believe that. >> charlie: no. >> when you look at the gas potential in this country, with a single -- if we put our minds to it, we could not only have an engy strategy and reorganize ourselves which is rather simple to do. but withiningle dig years, this country could be t energy exporter. it would create thousands of, hundreds of thousands of jobs. it would help our balance of payments and our trade deficit. and it could open up, it would be, it'sot thenly thing but

it's one of the major thin it would op up i think a pathway to economic recovery that we so clearly need. >> does the president agree with you? >> we talked about this on my last day in office when i left. and he was very gracious and we had a wonderful conversation and i took advantage of my last 15 minutes to say that what i thought about energy and i would like to continue to be help tell. so in my private life that's what i'm trying to do, trying to be helpful. >> charlie: i hope we can delve deeper into some of the challenges we face. >> i would love to. >> charlie: thank you. >> thank you very much. captioning sponsored by rose commucations captioned by media access group at wgbh

access.wgbh.org